Debates of April 20th, 1999

Criminal Code

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share some of the views that were raised by the hon. member from the Reform Party. We certainly know his ongoing concern for conditional sentencing. I have two questions for the member.

Should the member not be looking at the fact that the Minister of Justice has asked the justice committee to study this issue? Should he not be helping the members of his party who sit on the justice committee to ensure that the justice committee does not have 100 private members' motions before it so that the committee does not have to deal with the private members' motions before it deals with conditional sentencing?

I encourage the hon. member to help the committee expedite the work in terms of arriving at conditional sentencing and making some recommendations to the minister in terms of conditional sentencing and to bring amendments forward.

The second question I have for the hon. member has to do with family violence. It was rather interesting that the member talked about statistics. Does the member know how many of those women were killed by guns used by their spouses? His party did not support the gun control legislation. When the member does bring those statistics forward, he should be talking about the type of violence that women face in society. The member should be supporting the government on initiatives such as gun control.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly on a point of order. There have been discussions between the House leaders of all parties and I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That Motion M-73, introduced on September 23, 1997 by Ms. Venne, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, be now recorded in the name of Mr. Laurin, the member for Joliette.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Resulting from conversations with the same House leaders, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent that the divisions on the supply proceedings deferred from April 19, 1999 be taken up this day immediately after the division on Motion P-31.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the House agree to the suggestion of the chief government whip?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-79, an act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for her two comments.

First was her comment to let the justice committee to which the justice minister has referred this matter do its work. I refer her to the case of her colleague from Mississauga East who had private members' legislation referred to the justice committee only to have it completely trashed and torn apart by her colleagues and treated with total disdain. I do not have a lot of faith, nor do Canadians, in the committee operation of the government. That might deal with the issue of letting the committee handle it rather than trying to handle it in the House.

With respect to the second issue she referred to, I would like to touch on what the courts said about conditional sentencing. In August 1997 the B.C. Court of Appeal stated “If parliament had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under section 742.1, it could have done so in clear language”. Even the courts are saying that the government should get off its duff and change the law to exclude those types of crimes from conditional sentencing.

The last issue she raised was that because of the incidents of domestic violence and the amount of women who are killed by former spouses, we should support gun control. The reality is that her government's gun control legislation, the registering of guns, will do absolutely nothing. I cannot use unparliamentary language and I get pretty worked up about gun control, but it will do nothing to prevent those types of deaths.

There are things her government can do to help prevent those types of deaths. I have outlined one and that is to give these women the protection they need under the Witness Protection Program Act.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to represent the people of Elk Island in today's debate.

It is a very solemn debate. We are talking about issues of life and death. We are talking about families that are grieved because they have been victims of crime. Their children and loved ones have been hurt or murdered. We also need to think of those who are family members of the persons who perpetrate the crimes. I do not know whether many people have thought of it this way.

I will not mention specific cases but there have been a number of really difficult criminal acts committed in Canada over the last number of years, even since I was first elected in 1993. One of the most grievous ones was the young man, whose name I do not want to put into my mouth, who used the young girls he captured as sex toys and then found his ultimate pleasure by watching them die and videotaping it. Many of us know him as Paul. It was dastardly, unbelievable and totally unacceptable.

People have come to our parliamentary committee and have made presentations to say that they want some greater involvement. They want their rights protected when the law deals with the perpetrators of these crimes. I know there is a balance to be reached here. Some of these families struggled for years in their search for closure.

I think of a young family in Winnipeg whose daughter was murdered in winter. They did not find her for a number of weeks. When they did, she was in an abandoned shed. She had been strangled and left there in the cold. The murderer has never been found. How that family has dealt with that is actually the subject of the book Have you seen Candace? I remember being grieved about that murder because my brother-in-law knew the family and spoke about it.

I think of other situations where people do unspeakable things, some so heinous that we do not want to even speak about them. There are other things as well that people do which are illegal.

This is a day of celebration in the House for an accomplishment. There has been a little bit of a debate about whether or not this issue would be on the table here today were it not for the fact that the official opposition, and in our position as third party in the previous parliament, has been relentless in bringing this issue forward. All governments prior to this one had never thought it an issue important enough to bring to this place.

The very fact that it appears we now have near unanimity among all parliamentarians from all of the different parties to support this bill should give us cause to celebrate. It is an advance we are making on behalf of all of the hurting innocent victims of crime.

The Reform Party to which I belong is now 10 years old. One of the things that attracted me to the Reform Party was its statement of principles. One of them in justice which grabbed my attention was the fact that in principle, the expedition of the judicial system should be that of giving priority to the protection of the lives, the property and the well-being of law-abiding citizens.

If I may be permitted to quote, and I know one of my colleagues was called on using a prop earlier today, so I am going to be very careful to hold this book so the camera cannot pick it up. No one can see the cover of the blue book from which I am reading:

The Reform Party supports a judicial system which places the punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property ahead of all other objectives.

That is real novel, but it is what happened when our party in its formation listened to what we so affectionately call the grassroots. Ordinary Canadians told us the administration of justice in this system is skewed in that the victims are dead last in terms of what concern is expressed by the justice system and the government.

My colleagues earlier today have reiterated the cases where the perpetrator of the crime has all kinds of counselling and help available while the victims of the crime have to pay for it themselves. In many cases they cannot afford it and have to go without. Those are the kinds of things we need to correct if we want to call ourselves a civilized law-abiding country.

I am very happy this is happening here today. It is a step in the right direction. It is one which is long overdue, 10, 20, 30 years overdue. I am very proud to be a part of the process which has made this happen.

Item C in our blue book, which again I will hold very carefully as I read from it, states that the Reform Party supports granting victims of crime official standing in court and parole hearings, and requiring courts and parole boards to review victim impact statements before sentencing. To the greatest extent possible victims should be compensated by offenders for financial loss resulting from criminal acts.

One of the items in that part of our blue book will be adopted if the bill is passed, and we anticipate that it will be, and that is the use of victim impact statements. I am very grateful that I have never had the experience of being the victim of a severe crime. I have been the victim of minor crimes, but no major crimes. I cannot imagine the feelings and the emotions that families go through when they deal with serious crimes.

There is no doubt in my mind that the action we are taking today of providing for impact statements and allowing victims to make the decision themselves as to whether someone will read it into the record of the court or whether they will present it themselves is a tremendous step forward. Many people who are victims of crime will testify to the fact that they feel left out. Their son or daughter is gone, has been murdered, abused or injured, and during the court proceedings they are relegated to strictly spectator status. With this bill they will finally be heard. Their story can be told. It can be entered into the record.

I know there are some judicial purists, maybe even some in the House—and I will be careful in which direction I direct my gaze when I say this—who would say “We ought not to be making judicial decisions based upon emotions; they should be based on facts”. That is certainly true. I do not believe that people should be convicted of crimes of which they are innocent simply because the crowd in the town thinks they have the right perpetrator and because of the high emotions of the time they say that the accused is guilty and they have their revenge. Of course we do not want that.

That is not what this talks about. The actual determination of the guilt or innocence of the person who is accused takes place before the victim impact statements are entered into the record. It is proposed that this be done at the time of sentencing so that the judge can take into account what the actual impact has been on the victims of this criminal act. I think it is a very great step forward.

With respect to the second point, we also think that victims should be compensated by offenders. This is one area in which I think we should do a great deal. As far as I know, it is not in Bill C-79. I may be wrong, since I am not an expert on this, but from the notes that I have gathered the question of compensation for non-violent crimes is not included.

I want to share a little knowledge that I have in dealing with young offenders, people who perform what we call petty crimes, but which to the victims are pretty serious. I am talking about things like breaking and entering, robberies, sometimes vandalism.

We should place into law the principle of restitution. There is nothing more effective for a young person or any other person who has committed a crime to come to grips with and accept responsibility for what he or she has done than to have them sit down across the table from the person they have victimized, look them in the eye and say “Yes, I did it”.

I have talked to people who have worked in the so-called restitution area with young offenders. When young people realize how they have offended someone else, who at the time was a faceless non-entity but is now a real person, it can very often turn their lives around. They realize that what they did was wrong. They accept responsibility for it and they make some kind of a deal so they can provide restitution.

I do not know if this is the time for me to make a public confession of my criminal life. I suppose I should tell the House about the one thing I did. Maybe there were two, but I can only remember one. It was definitely questionable, but it was an important turning point in my life.

I was a youngster of probably 10 or 11 years old. We lived out in the country in Saskatchewan. We had some people living on our yard whom my family had sponsored to come over from the old country. They were called displaced persons at that time. Some thought that was a derogatory term. I always thought it was a badge of honour, since they were survivors of some very difficult circumstances.

There were about three or four of us young fellows. I think I was the youngest of the group. We went for a little bicycle ride out in the country and we came across an abandoned farmyard. I do not know who started it. I do not think it was me. However, there was an empty farmhouse and there was gravel on the road. Gravel contains little rocks and little boys like to throw little rocks. Much to my regret, when we left the yard there was not a single window left intact in that house.

My father is a very wise man. He found out about it. Even though this happened decades ago, it is as vivid as if it happened yesterday. My dad said to me “We shall have to go and talk to Mr. Sawatsky about this”. He was the man who owned the property.

Dad and I went. I do not know what the other guys who were involved did, but I was involved. I will not say that my father made me, but he told me “When we go there this is what you will do”. We practised it. When we got into the yard I had to look Mr. Sawatsky square in the eye and say to him “I am the one who broke your windows. I am sorry and I want you to forgive me. We will replace the windows and I will pay for them”.

That lesson I value highly. I thank my father for doing that for me when I needed it. Who knows, maybe he steered me away on that day from a life of crime. If one starts there, who knows what will come next. Forcing me to go face to face with the person whom I had wronged to ask forgiveness, admitting that I had done wrong and offering restitution, was exactly the right solution.

I wish we had more dads who would do that with their boys, and maybe their daughters. We understand that there are now more and more young girls who are getting involved in some of these crimes. I wish there were more dads who would do that with their boys; steer them in the right direction, teach them what is right and what is wrong, and show them how to solve it when they do something like that.

I wish that Bill C-79 would also include the principle of restitution as a way of dealing with crime. In this bill we are dealing mostly with victims of severe crime, and there is no way to restore a person's life.

I think of the guys in Edmonton who a punched the eyes out of one of their victims. There is no way that young man's vision can be restored. He is blind for life. His eyes are gone. There is no restitution available. There has to be punishment for them.

However, for the smaller crimes, especially those committed by young fellows who are bored, we need to have those individuals face up to their responsibilities.

Perhaps I have a slightly novel approach to this. As many people have said, we need to look at the prevention of crime. I believe that starts when a youngster is approximately two days old and continues through their lifetime, through adolescence right up to adulthood. I believe that we should build morality into our young people. Sometimes I hear, especially from the Liberals and the NDP, that poverty causes crime. I do not buy that.

When I was young we were very poor. We did not think of robbing other people and getting into crime because we were poor. I know that we need to do everything we can to alleviate poverty. There is no doubt about it. I am not arguing that. However, I will not concede to a person that being less well off than someone else gives them the justification for crime, any more than it does for me and my children because we have neighbours who are a lot richer than we are. That just does not wash.

We need to get down to some really solid principles. I am glad for the principles of justice which are contained in the Reform Party document. There is a whole list of them. I read only two. I would encourage all members of the House to get hold of the blue book policies of the Reform Party and read them. They make eminently great sense. That is one of the things that drew me to this party and that is why I am so very happy to be part of this process today because we are making progress.

I congratulate all members for what I expect will be unanimous support.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Elk Island has worked in education with young people for 35 years.

He will know, I am sure, that the young people who commit serious crimes in or outside Sherwood Park are very small in number. In Millwoods, the member will perhaps be interested to know, there were apparently 17 persons, a year or so ago, who committed most of the serious crime.

Could he give us the benefit of his advice as to what he would do with that tiny minority in Millwoods? They are almost all young men. What would he do to the young men in his constituency who commit so much of the serious crime in Sherwood Park? As well, does he think that drugs are the cause of much of the crime?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very broad question which allows me to go off in almost any direction. I would reiterate that, first, we need to make sure our young people are taught a system of morality which holds up and is consistent. We have a moral void with all of this moral relativism in our society.

I also worked for many years on a board which ran a camp for young people, children and families. It was a great experience to get outdoors and go camping with these young people. When I worked there I was young myself. I am now getting on, by a few more years.

I believe that those are very important issues.

We have many volunteers in my riding who work with young people in sports programs, camping programs and all of those things. I think that prevention is absolutely mandatory.

We have to kick that into high gear. We have flagged on it. Our families are struggling. Many of them are in conflict because of high taxation. Both parents have to work even though they would choose not to if they did not have to. As a result our families are not as strong as they ought to be.

With respect to those who actually commit the crime, what do we do with them after? As I have said, we ought to hold them personally responsible, certainly if they are involved in things like trafficking in drugs which often happens. This is one of the motivators of crime. Many of our young people get hooked on different kinds of drugs. Because the people from whom they get the drugs are not about to donate them, they go about financing it by break and enters and all sorts of things.

This is perhaps a novel way of handling them, but I would get them out into the woods. I would take them out to a camp; I really would. I am not talking necessarily of a strict boot camp but there would be some discipline. These young people would have to learn that there is an authority structure to which they have to submit themselves. Otherwise we have chaos in the country. We are all subject to authority. They too are subject to authority. The faster they learn that, the better off they will be and the better off we will all be.

I would provide work experience. I know of a person who does this in his work with Manitoba justice. They actually bring young offenders to a place where they are under their care and keeping 24 hours a day. They provide work for these young men. They are chopping firewood. They get to do things that are useful. It gives them a sense of accomplishment. They actually work for their food. It is a great way of steering them away from the crime they have entered into.

In all cases there is not a perfect success rate, but they have at least as high a success rate as the ones who simply go to prison and learn from the pros.

We would do well in the justice systems in the different provinces if we expand the use of smaller groups such as that. It probably would not cost as much as running our prisons and we would have a much higher degree of success.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elk Island made reference in his comments to a young girl who went missing a number of years ago. It turned out that she had been murdered in Winnipeg. The young girl's name was Candace and a book was written about her. I would like to acknowledge the mother who actually wrote that book, Wilma Derksen.

Wilma has been very active in the last number of years dealing with victims of crime and in the whole restorative justice process. Coincidentally, and I know we are not supposed to use props, I received in the mail today the publication by her organization dealing with victims and reconciliation.

I would like the member's comments and thoughts on restorative justice and victim-offender reconciliation, especially in cases of less serious crimes where the offenders come face to face with their victims and get to understand who their victims are.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think this works best at a younger age. At the beginning of my speech I said that the training of a young person to be a law-abiding citizen begins at age two days. Maybe we waited too long, but I think it is a lifelong thing.

I remember seeing a poster many years ago of a tree with one branch that was really crooked. The tree was beautiful except for that one branch and the caption read “As the twig is bent, so grows the child”. When we talk about restorative justice, I think the example I used from my own life illustrated that. I believe we have to captivate young people as early as possible. If we train them throughout life, both by word and by example in the family, in the school and in the church, to be moral, to put the needs of others ahead of their own and to be unselfish they will not grow up to be criminals. If they do make their own decisions later, the earlier the better to catch them and provide the opportunity for restorative justice, for restitution, for facing their victims and for giving them some solid role models to follow at that stage. I am absolutely convinced that is the way to reduce it, but I do not think we will ever get away from it entirely with human nature having a bit of a bad streak in it.

I reiterate there are some who progress despite all efforts into more and more serious crime. When an individual is found to be incorrigible we have an obligation, as stated in the principles of the Reform Party, to protect law-abiding citizens. If there is one who just will not obey the rules and who is doing worse and worse things to other people, to their person and to their property, we have to use that part of the law which restrains the evil doer.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the members for Surrey North and Langley—Abbotsford for the leadership they have shown for so long on the issues of victims rights and justice. My hope is that the government will listen to the many eloquent suggestions they have been putting forth for a long time and that it will employ them.

Perhaps Bill C-79 is an example of the failure of the government to listen to what the opposition has been saying for so long. Many years ago the Liberals, not the current group but the previous group, decided to make a change in the way they dealt with justice. Their view was that no longer would the justice system be primarily responsible for or have as its primary goal the protection of innocent civilians. According to the Liberal government of late seventies-early eighties the primary role of the justice system was the rehabilitation of criminals. We want to change that around.

We in the Reform Party believe the primary role of the justice system is to protect innocent Canadians from being victimized. That is not to say we want to ignore those who commit crimes. Far from it. The member for Elk Island eloquently mentioned the need for early prevention from the time a person is born.

I would suggest we need to work before that for some very pragmatic reasons. How do we do this? We are dealing with Bill C-79 and the issue of victims rights. Victims have rights and for too long those rights have been pushed down by a system that supports the rights of the condemned over the rights of the victims.

There are good parts in Bill C-79. There are parts about the right of the victim to put forward a victim impact statement and very importantly for the victim to have choice of whether or not to say it or to introduce it as a piece of paper. We applaud that as it is something the Reform Party has been pushing for, for a very long time.

We also want to see a way in which victims can know things about when the person who violated them is getting out of jail, where the person is going, and what conditions are being placed on the person. To my knowledge that simply is not happening right now.

Imagine rape victims finding out by chance or down the line that the person who violated them has been let out of jail. They do not know where the person is or where that person is going. They look over their shoulders hoping and praying the person is not after them.

This is the reality of the lives of many people who have been victimized and the government needs to change it. It needed to change it yesterday but having failed to do that it needs to change it now. Many times my colleagues, as well as members of the Liberal government and members of the other political parties, have presented constructive solutions to change this gross inequality in our justice system.

We also believe in the concept of restitution, that those who have committed a crime should do restitution to those who are victims. That would send a very clear message to the criminal that he or she we will have to pay the victim and society many times over the cost of the crime. The concept of restorative justice is a good one and one that we will support the government in pursuing when and if it chooses to do it.

The concept of protection of victims too is important. Right now we have a justice system that sentences people to a certain amount of time. Do the people serve that time? No, they do not. Not even for first degree murder do they serve the full sentence they are given. For everything but first degree murder people can be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence. They are condemned, convicted of a serious offence such as attempted murder or rape, sentenced to 12 years, serve 2 years and released on parole.

What kind of message does that send to the criminal element? It says if they commit a crime they can get away with a minimal penalty. If we look at the two years that can be served in jail, the person who has been victimized will be paying the penalty of that and suffering long after two years are over. They will pay the price of their victimization long after the person who committed the crime is out on the street. What can we do? My colleagues have mentioned many constructive suggestions.

I will talk for a moment about the offender because therein lies a number of failures but also a number of opportunities to engage in some proactive issues. When I worked in jails I found that many of the people there had unfortunately not had treatment. The resources were not there to treat the underlying problems of why they were in jail in the first place. Their drug abuse and psychiatric and psychological problems were not being treated.

As a result we see a door that goes around and around with people being convicted, let out and convicted again. We do not break the cycle of crime, punishment and incarceration that condemns many people to a life that we would not want. I would argue that they do not want it either.

There are things we can do. I draw the attention of the minister to the fact that the people who are doing the psychiatric treatment and educational training are not getting the support they require.

Furthermore there is not an obligation on the part of criminals to engage in the activities that will prevent them from reoffending. They are essential but they are optional. We need to make it absolutely mandatory that if criminals ignore the required treatment for them to break the cycle of crime, punishment and incarceration, five-sixths of their sentences is not automatically removed on the basis of good behaviour to which they have not been committed.

We need a system where people will have their sentences reduced for good behaviour if they engage in good behaviour and not because it is automatic. They have to engage in the treatment required, the educational options to be employable when released, and the drug training and drug treatment programs that are necessary for them to break the cycle that contributed to their being in jail in the first place. Then they can have time knocked off for good behaviour, say a third of the sentence.

For heaven's sake, five-sixths of their sentence should not be knocked off just to have a revolving door and turf people out of jail because there is not enough room. If there is not enough room and a person is a danger to society, I guess we will have to build more prisons.

We also have to divide the prison population up into two groups: violent and non-violent. There is no way non-violent individuals, those who are not career criminals, should be stuck in with the violent criminals. Those who are not career criminals who made a mistake should have other options for serving their time. As I mentioned before, restitution is one of them. Treatment is another option that they have to engage in. Hopefully when they get out they will have kicked the drug habit, had the psychiatric help they required and be employable and functional members of society. Only then can we save our system a lot of money and also save other people from being victimized in the future.

We also need to look at the police. We saw recently a report from the exiting chief commissioner of police in Vancouver who lamented very clearly the fact that we have created a revolving door in our justice system. He despaired not only for himself, but more important for the men and women in uniform who serve and protect our communities. The police are being demoralized in part because they do not have the support of the justice system.

The justice system is not giving the penalty that is appropriate for the offence. As a result, the police wonder why they are putting all their work and effort into getting a conviction when the justice system is not giving the penalty. Many career criminals think it is a joke for obvious reasons. That has to change.

We have to support the police as they support us and that includes that the justice system attach the penalty that fits the crime. If you commit a violent offence, if you are a repeat offender, then you are going to meet the full force of the law. For others, there are different options.

The RCMP do not have the resources to do the job. They had to close down their training facility. They do not have the money for overtime to engage in the prosecution. They do not have the helicopters they require. They cannot even fix their patrol cars because there is not enough money. How can we have a justice system when we cannot support it?

Justice does not come unless we have a police force to support it. If we do not have a police force, then we approach anarchy. Nobody in the House, no law-abiding citizen in the country wants anarchy.

The hands of the police are tied on how to deal with organized crime. Organized crime is massive in this country. The police lament that the government has not given them the legislative tools to deal with organized crime, which has a huge penalty for our entire country. We need to do that. We need to give police those tools.

Let us look at what has happened historically in the amount of time that is required to achieve a conviction. The amount of work police officers have to put in is far greater than what they had to do 10 years ago because of the hoops and the loops the government has put in their way. We do not want sloppy police work, but we want to give the police the ability to do their job. Why put in numerous unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles?

I challenge the Minister of Justice to look at the justice system, look at the hoops the police have to go through. Remove the unnecessary hoops and keep those that are necessary for the rule of law to be upheld.

My colleague from Elk Island articulated the issue of prevention very clearly. A few weeks ago I was working as a physician and I came across a patient I had seen in the past. She was one of three girls I had treated in the past. She was the last one that I had seen recently.

She was 13 years old when she was put on the street by her mother to prostitute to get the money to pay for her mother's drug abuse habit. I was quite surprised that she was alive. I did not expect her to be alive because I had seen her a few years ago. She came into where I was working with track marks up both arms, some were infected and some were not.

The life she has been living is remarkable. It is a life that nobody in the House would want for anybody. She has been engaging in a great deal prostitution in part to support her mother's drug habit, but also to support her own. Like many other drug abusers she is spending between $200 and $500 a day on drugs. I asked how she was getting the money when she was unemployed. Prostitution and other criminal activities such as break and enter is the price society pays.

This situation did not materialize for this little girl as a 13 year old. She came from a tragic environment. I had met her two other friends a few years ago. I saw treated them in jail. They were 14 and 15 years old at the time. They had already been on the streets prostituting for a while. They were IV drug abusers. After examining them both I told them they would not see their 19th birthday. They laughed and giggled and said they did not really care because they were having fun. I was wrong.

I was reading the newspaper a couple of years after and one of the girls had been found dead on the side of a lonely road, murdered while engaging in another trick. A year after that I found her friend. I was walking through a pediatric ward and I saw her there. She had had a massive stroke in her teenage years from shooting up with IV cocaine. This is not uncommon.

If we examine the history of these girls and many of the people in jails, both adults and juveniles, we see a history oftentimes marred by improper nutrition, violent sexual abuse, and the witnessing of violence.

In up to 50% of the cases in adult jails, many of the people suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. It is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in our country today. It is a silent epidemic.

The average IQ of these people is 68. They have a great deal of difficulty with cognitive functions and basic processing in their brain. When they attend school they cannot function properly because their brain is irreversibly damaged. There is no going back. They become isolated within school and act up. They engage in behaviour that puts them at the periphery of society. As they get older they often but not always engage in illegal activities. Then they end up in front of our justice system.

What if we could prevent that? What if we could prevent that person from having brain damage? We can and need to do it. We must do it. No longer can the epidemic of fetal alcohol syndrome be buried under the carpet and considered as something that affects people out there. It involves whole communities.

I remember flying in a chopper last year to an aboriginal reserve to do a clinic. I would venture to say that perhaps 25% of the people I saw were suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. One-quarter of the people on the reserve had it. That is a guess but that is approximately the number of people I saw.

These people can never engage in being cognitive, interactive people in society. It is very difficult for them to do that. How do we prevent it?

The Minister of Labour and her husband started the Moncton Headstart Program in 1972. It was a leader in its field. Essentially they wondered how they could prevent children from running afoul of the law. How could they make them the best citizens possible? How could they change the course of their lives from what their parents had, which perhaps had been a life of crime, a life of poverty? How could they put them on a level playing field with others?

Essentially they worked with prevention. The parents and the children were brought together to strengthen the bond. Bad parents were taught how to be good parents. They were taught simple things such as disciplining a child. They were taught proper nutrition and the fact that a can of coke and a bag of potato chips is not good nutrition. The parents were taught how to engage in proper discipline, how to set boundaries, how to be a good parent.

We recently saw reports in the newspapers about studies that had been done. These studies looked at 1,600 random samplings of parents. Nearly 70% of those parents did not know the basics of good parenting. Seventy per cent across a wide spectrum of socioeconomic groups did not know how to be good parents. This may seem subtle but the impact on the future of our society can be dramatic.

The Moncton Headstart Program has been profoundly effective at reducing teenage crime rates, teen pregnancies and keeping kids in school longer with less dependence on welfare. There is a $6 to $7 saving for every dollar invested.

The same held true in the Perry Preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan and the Hawaii headstart program. The Hawaii headstart program used trained volunteers to work with families and saw a 99% drop in child abuse rates. The findings in Moncton were shown again in the Michigan program which has a 30 year track record of early intervention.

We have been trying to get the human resources development subcommittee to deal with this issue. It is studying children at risk right now. Let us look at implementing a national headstart program using existing resources. Have the feds take the leadership role by working with the provinces to prevent these things from occurring. There is a track record of prevention. There are pragmatic doable solutions which we can employ now. What a great thing if the House could do that for the children of this country. We can and must do it for all the children.

I asked that the House pass a motion calling for a national headstart program last year. I implore the minister to work with her provincial counterparts to deal with this. I implore the subcommittee chairman to deal with this.

Together we will be able to build a program, not just for the poor at risk, but for all parents. This cuts across socioeconomic grounds. Even children from affluent neighbourhoods and affluent households who are latchkey kids and who do not have appropriate parenting need the love, care and security that all children require. As we all know money and material things are no substitute for love, care and security and a secure home.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, I salute the member on his intervention. There was not a word that he said that I disagreed with. In fact I enthusiastically support everything he said as I am sure many members around the House do.

Not so long ago a doctor in Edmonton told me he feels that about 15% of the babies born in one of our Edmonton hospitals will be essentially unemployable because of fetal alcohol syndrome. Would a national headstart program deal with that or would the member see separate ways of trying to deal with the scourge of fetal alcohol syndrome?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although the secretary of state is responsible for Africa and Latin America, he has written many extremely articulate and informative articles and has been a leader in the House on the issue of early prevention. He deserves a great deal of credit. I have tried to use many of his ideas because they are just plain good. They are great ideas. I thank him for his long term involvement in this issue. He has been a true national leader on this issue.

The secretary of state's intervention is good. The solutions that have been employed in Alberta can be lessons to be learned and employed across the country. Much of that has been used in other headstart programs.

I am hoping that this will be a national program. I envision that three sections can be used.

The first is to use the medical community at time zero. All women go to their doctors during the course of their pregnancy. This would be an ideal opportunity to address prevention for FAS, nutritional aspects and others.

The second is to use the trained volunteer model which is used so successfully in Hawaii. It usually involves women who are good parents and who can act as mentors to families at risk and other families. They can teach people how to be good parents. We have seen the need for that in our country.

Last, we could use the schools from kindergarten to grade two like the example used by the Minister of Labour in her Moncton Headstart Program. We can bring parents and children into the schools to learn the basics of parenting and the importance child-parent interaction.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the member who spoke eloquently and made some good points. There is one area in which I need some clarification.

He spoke compellingly about the head start program. We know that in the head start program there is discretion. He said that there is no financial cut-off. For example, one cannot turn away children from affluent communities because oftentimes they need guidance.

The hon. member spoke compellingly about his role as a physician, about three girls who came to see him, about his treatment of patients, which requires discretion, and certainly the discretion of a good physician to be able to examine his or her patients and come to a conclusion about what is the best treatment.

I think he would feel, as would most practitioners, that it would be wrong to legislate what a physician has to do. For example, when prescribing drugs, that they must or must not prescribe certain drugs, depending upon how they see the case.

The member talked about parole eligibility. I know that he wanted to be clear on this. He said that an individual who is sentenced to 12 years only serves two. I think what he meant was that they have eligibility for parole at the end of one-sixth of their sentence, which is different from saying that they would be released. They are eligible to apply to a board which would exercise its discretion in determining whether that offender has changed or met certain requirements; the same discretion that he would exercise as a physician or the same discretion that those who run the head start program would exercise.

Surely he agrees that the parole board should have that same discretion to make those judgment calls.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the parole board must have that discretion.

If a person commits a crime and is sentenced, being eligible for parole after serving only one-sixth of their sentence is, in my view, far too little. That contributes to the lack of confidence that our police forces have in the ability of the justice system to support them.

I am not saying that we should toss people in jail and throw away the key. As I mentioned in my speech there are two groups, violent and non-violent. Perhaps I should say violent, career criminals and non-violent, non-career criminals. I think they should be treated very differently.

What I am saying is that a sentence should be reduced on the basis of a person's ability to meet requirements such as the treatment of drug addiction, obtaining psychiatric help or demonstrating appropriate behaviour within the context of the institution in which they are incarcerated. If they fulfill those requirements, then the parole board would be able to exercise its good judgment in determining whether that person should or should not be released.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I very much support the comments of my hon. friend opposite in terms of prevention. Of course, prevention costs money and I hope he garners the support of his colleagues to undertake a major program across this country. I think we would save money in the end.

With respect to the issue of prevention, as we were debating this bill in the House today I noticed that at Columbine High School in Denver, Colorado, 20 students had been shot and the people doing the shooting still have not been apprehended.

There are many other examples in the United States, and of course the tragic example we have in Canada of what happened at the École Polytechnique in 1989.

Keeping in mind the emphasis on prevention that the member was talking about, surely he would want to support, as CAVEAT has asked us to do, as well as victims' groups, gun control legislation.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on that issue.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly answer three questions. The first question concerns prevention. We can use existing resources to engage in prevention. There is a smattering of organizations across the country which are engaging in prevention. If the minister would ask her provincial counterparts to come to the table, tell her what is working and what is not, toss out what is not working and keep what is, that would force the provinces to rationalize their programs.

As the member mentioned, it costs $95,000 a year for a youth to be incarcerated and $60,000 for an adult.

On the issue of gun control, the Reform Party is firmly in favour of good gun control laws. We are in favour of the firearms acquisition certificate. We are in favour of having checks on people. We are in favour of having a delay period. We are in favour of a course, which gun lobby groups are in favour of.

What we are not in favour of is gun control legislation that will cost money and not have an effect. On that point, it is the gun registry that will do just that.

We have to be very careful that if we are going to put money into a program we ensure that the money we are putting in, with the limited resources we have, will have more effect than where we are taking it from. It is called economic cost. If we are going to put money into gun registration, we had better be certain that the registry is going to make our streets safer, save people's lives and save money.

The fact is that gun registries do not work. The government is now finding this out. The Reform Party has said for a long time that the millions of dollars that are being put into the gun registry could be better spent on something else. I had this conversation with members opposite.

Over the last 20 years the number of people who have been killed with legal handguns is five per year. Should we spend $50 million, $100 million or $200 million to save five lives, when if we move it out of the justice system to somewhere else it could cost a hundred or two hundred lives because of rapists who are allowed to walk and murderers who are not arrested?

That is the reason we oppose it. It is not because we are against the registry, it is not because we are in the back pocket of the gun lobbyists, but because we want, like the government, to have the safest country possible. That is why we are opposed to it. However, we are in favour of the good gun control rules that we have in Canada.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on behalf of my riding of Edmonton East to victims rights.

I wish to compliment the minister on the comments she made in the press conference which clearly gave recognition to the Reform Party for its efforts in pursuing changes to address victims rights. I extend congratulations to my colleagues from Surrey North and Langley—Abbotsford. I also want to thank the minister for her very frank statement that this is not the end of victims rights reform but just the beginning, as we all explore better ways to address the issues and concerns.

It is with this in mind that I wish to speak about serious concerns of victims and potential victims of a recent heinous phenomenon, home invasions. Does this bill address the concerns of these victims? Not nearly enough. It contains only very minor rejigging of procedure. While the bill is desirable, it falls short of real reform to address the concerns of these victims, let alone being a serious deterrent.

It is a sad commentary on our society when police must advise us never to open our doors unless we can see who is knocking and unless we know who that person is. As the police reported in one Canadian home invasion, the victim made that one mistake. He opened the door because he could not see who it was through the peephole.

Anyone at any time can be the victim of a home invasion. The elderly are described as the victims of choice.

There have been at least seven home invasions in Edmonton so far in 1999, resulting in serious injuries. There were only 10 in all of last year. They terrorize the occupants and expose them to the traumatic experience of forced entry with the intent to hold the occupants hostage. People are the target of home invasions. Victims are tortured into giving up property.

In committee the Reform Party, with the support of other opposition parties, asked the federal government to study this growing problem as it affects citizens in what should be their safest place, their home. The hon. member for Winnipeg South said that the idea was silly and not worthy of government concern.

I would fully support any study that would help to ensure the safety of Canadians in their own homes. I would also remind the hon. member for Winnipeg South that one recent home invasion I read about took place in his own riding.

Police say that we can combat home invasions by knowing our neighbours. Since most home invaders are caught due to phone tips, much more is needed now and not later.

The Criminal Code needs to be amended to provide tougher sentences for people involved in home invasions, and even better, to create an entirely new offence of home invasion.

At present most home invaders are charged with breaking and entering. Convicted offenders often do not go to jail. Multiple charges associated with home invasion are plea bargained away or have sentences concurrently served with other charges. In short, no additional punishment is given for home invasion.

Exceptional crimes require exceptional measures. We must raise the price of home invasion to properly reflect the heinous nature of the crime.

A while ago in Edmonton three young offenders broke into the home of victim Barb Danelesko and knifed her to death.

While the seven home invasions this year have yet to result in any deaths, I consider that luck more than anything. Home invasions are typically brutal and intrusive like no other crime, with hostage taking lasting for hours at a time.

There have been at least seven home invasions in Edmonton so far in 1999. In January a 55 year old victim was hospitalized with a gash to his head.

In January, on an Edmonton Sunday afternoon, masked gunmen charged through an unlocked back door of a home looking for drugs. They took money. The police called it home robbery rather than home invasion, although I cannot see the difference, and neither do many of the police officers who say that home invasion should be a separate offence under the Criminal Code in order to track the magnitude of the problem.

In February of this year an Edmonton family was victimized and terrorized, tied up, and their home was ransacked by two gunmen. In February another Edmonton family was held hostage in their home for 16 hours.

In March an Edmonton victim was cut on the hand and head when he struggled with armed robbers committing a home invasion. In that case police are looking for three suspects in their late teens to early twenties.

In March, in Camrose, police arrested two youths, aged 16 and 17, in connection with the home invasion of a 69 year old victim the previous December. In her own home the woman was knocked to the ground, her face bruised by a masked intruder who broke in and stole various items. Robbers do not wear masks if they expect nobody to be home.

In Vancouver police believe that since 1995 two or three people have been responsible for the invasion of 31 homes occupied by the elderly, with 13 or almost half of these home invasions occurring in the last four months. During one of these home invasions a 79 year old victim was murdered.

In Melfort, Saskatchewan an 80 year old victim died subsequent to a home invasion on Christmas Eve, 1998. The man was beaten and tied after answering his front door and lay on his living room floor for 18 hours before being discovered. Because he died two months after the home invasion, police decided that the beating did not contribute to his death. The home invader, 29 years old, remains charged only with robbery and unlawful confinement. That is so even though it is accepted that trauma from any assault, particularly if experienced by an elderly victim, has long lasting affects.

In Merritt, B.C. an 80 year old victim was murdered in 1998 during the course of a home invasion by an 18 year old who is now charged with first degree murder. The victim had his hands and feet bound and was forced to lie on his bed. He was covered by a chest of drawers and his walker.

Near Lac La Biche a mother and daughter found themselves fleeing into the freezing cold after two strangers kicked in the door of their farmhouse at 2.30 in the morning. The daughter suffered from frostbite on her feet.

In Winnipeg this March a 17 year old victim was working at home on his computer. In the early afternoon a stranger knocked and three youths appeared shortly afterwards through the unlocked rear door, cut the telephone cord, tied the youth up, put a knife to his throat and fled with a small amount of money and jewellery.

The B.C. government has offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of home invaders in Vancouver. The reward has recently been increased to $100,000. The Vancouver police department has formed a specialized home invasion police task force which has been given a blank cheque for whatever equipment and resources it requires. In March the attorney general of British Columbia appointed a specialized prosecutor just to deal with home invasions.

Last week there was an unbelievably horrendous home invasion, brutal beating and robbery of a 79 year old decorated World War II veteran, Robert Delaney, and his 78 year old wife Betty. Mr. Delaney is currently hospitalized in Halifax in critical condition as a result of the attack. The victims were attacked in their home, allegedly by 20 year olds and one 14 year old who have been arrested and charged.

The courts must take a hard line on home invasions. Mr. Delaney is a veteran of the famed Black Watch of Montreal and was decorated by the government at war's end for outstanding acts of bravery.

This Halifax home invasion came during the same week that Canada's World War I valour at Vimy Ridge was being commemorated in the House of Commons. Veterans who have fought and died for our freedom are now confronted with violent and lawless youth, the products of years of disrespect for history and country, as their aggressors.

Canada's education system has done an abysmal job of educating youth about the contributions of our war veterans. Canada's veterans ought not be targets of crime but rather be highly regarded and respected. This proud World War II veteran survived the wrath of Nazi Germany but he might not survive the cowardly attack by Canada's young criminals hiding behind antiquated laws and a void of victims rights.

I commend Alberta Justice Minister Jon Havelock who has been an advocate of reforming the process used to pick our supreme court judges. He is right in saying that they should not be picked based on their relationship with the Prime Minister. I will focus on Mr. Havelock's comments on home invasions. He could not have said it better: “Breaking and entering a residential home is not just a property offence”.

He addressed the heinous nature of this crime within the Alberta legislature and has noted that his counterparts in Manitoba and Ontario have done the same. All of them are calling for action from the justice minister. So too am I.

We can only speculate as to why home invasions are becoming more commonplace, but for the criminals there are some comparable advantages. As opposed to an act of assault and robbery in a shopping mall, the criminal has hours instead of minutes to commit the crime. The criminal is concealed from others behind closed doors. The crime's punishment under the present justice system is no different whether it is in the home or in the mall. Commonly sentences are served concurrently, not consecutively.

Home invasions are a particularly loathsome act of cowardliness generally targeting the very young, very old and the weak in a diabolically sinister fashion. Perpetrators first determine if the people are at home, plan an assault to gain entry and take hostage of the victims. Generally physical abuse and torment of the victims are involved along with a robbery and wanton destruction of the home's contents. All of this takes place behind the closed door of somebody's home, their sanctity from the evils of the street.

The institution of victims rights goes hand in hand with criminal justice system reforms. While victims rights are an after the fact privilege long overdue, fully implemented they would impact crime and the prevention of crime. Much more is needed in terms of both victims rights and reform of the justice system.

As we speak news is tragically unfolding in Denver, Colorado, as the United States is facing its legacy of ineffective laws that fail to control violence among others. A school invasion is taking place by armed youths. An armed assault is being made and students are being held hostage. Many deaths have occurred. Hundreds of direct and indirect victims have just been created and the event is still not under control.

Victims rights and criminal reform are not just a Canadian problem but a global problem. Canada could do well by leading the way. This is the challenge of the future. The bill is the beginning of victims rights and deserves to be supported for that.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the bill today. I too would like to give credit to the two Reform members, the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford and the hon. member for Surrey North, for all the work they have done in leading up to the legislation being presented.

As others have already said, the legislation will not go nearly as far as it should in terms of providing victims their rights. To demonstrate that, I want to read one of the most touching letters I have ever received from a constituent. This person was the victim of a heinous crime. I will read as much of this letter as I can and use it to demonstrate that there are still some huge gaps in legislation that must be filled to deal with situations such as this one.

This letter is from Linda Ryan of Lloydminister, Alberta, and I received it about a year ago. She wrote:

I am writing this letter in regard to the parole hearing of Jack Edgar. I am aware that Jack will receive a copy of this letter. I am asking that the parole board members take my letter and the enclosed documents into consideration in making a decision regarding Jack's application for parole.

I will just interject by saying that this woman desperately wanted to make a verbal petition to the parole board not to allow Jack Edgar to be released on parole. She went on to write:

On August 18, 1985 Jack Edgar murdered my mother and my aunt and that act changed my life forever. That act began my life sentence of fear, grief and betrayal. This man was my stepfather. A man who portrayed a caring, loving father, grandfather, uncle and son-in-law. Although in hindsight, I can see the cracks in his facade.

She goes on to talk about the impact of this murder committed by her stepfather against her mother and the impact on her daughter. In part she wrote:

It was a very long time before my little girl began to heal. She, too, carries a life sentence of grief and fear and betrayal. My children have missed so much. They had a right to all the love these two special people had to give them. My heart aches for the part of my children's lives they are missing. They also had a right to a mom who was not incapacitated by grief and to a family that was whole. It has taken a great deal of courage to survive this and make a life for my family. I have struggled to regain my optimism in life, to trust people and my ability to judge character; to maintain a sense of humour. I have done this for my children, for my mom and for my aunt. They would want this, as these are qualities they instilled in me.

The letter was written to the head of the parole board who was to hear the parole hearing which may have released Jack Edgar, the person who murdered her mother and aunt. She continued:

I know I can't predict what Jack will do, no one can, perhaps not even Jack himself. I do know I cannot live my life and raise my children with “what if's”. I cannot imagine being able to stay here in my home, near my family if Jack is released. I have not slept through an entire night since Nellie Taylor called to tell me he is applying for parole. The thought of him being released terrifies me. I live each and every day with what he did to them, their terror, their helplessness. That is enough. I should not have to live in fear of what he may do next. Releasing Jack is a violation of my right to safety. My fears are real and grounded and shared by many.

She goes on to list people who are also terrified at the thought of this person being paroled and who would see it as extremely important to have a say at the parole hearing. She wrote:

Money, power and position were always crucial to Jack, for his sense of self-worth. If Jack is released, there will be no money, no power, no position. The “important” people will no longer be there for him. He is a convicted double murderer. I fear he is a man with little to lose.

For the sake of time I will omit parts of what she had to say. I want to read a bit more about what she feels about this person that she desperately wants to remain in jail, this person who killed her mother and her aunt. She continued:

There is, however, another side to Jack Edgar which no one can predict.

In the paragraph before she talked about Jack and the impression he had left on people in the prison. She indicated:

I know from reading letters from the prison that Jack is highly regarded and is viewed to have many good qualities. This does not surprise me as Jack is a highly polished con artist and he has a way of gaining people's trust.

There is however another side to Jack Edgar which no one can predict. It enabled him to slaughter my Mom and my Aunt while they sobbed on their hands and knees. He did this with no regard for their lives, no regard for the agony he would cause for their families. His needs came first and he did not care who he destroyed to get what he wanted. This side of Jack is still there. He was 57 years old when he committed the murders and his character was cemented.

Over the years, in my conversations with the National Parole Board, I know that Jack has never taken any responsibility nor has he shown any remorse for the brutal murders of my Mom and my Aunt. I believe that Jack's recent admittance of “some” responsibility for the murders is directly related to his desire to obtain his freedom. I think Jack is a man with little conscience and his only remorse is for himself and his situation.

I realize that nothing will ever bring my Mom and my Aunt back, but a mere 6.5 years each of the loss of Jack's freedom is an insult to their memory.

I am asking that you deny parole for Jack, for the safety of myself, my family—

Then she named some other people. She continued:

I ask that if an error is to be made let it be made on the side of caution.

Those are some excerpts from a letter which unfortunately is in a file of about a dozen victims of extremely serious crime from whom I have heard.

The question is whether the bill we are debating today will in any way do anything to provide what this woman, a victim of a heinous crime, wants. She wants to be able to go to a parole hearing and to say what is in her heart, what she feels and what she lives with every day, so that she can put some kind of closure to the whole situation. She wants to feel safe in knowing that this person will probably never be released. That is what she wants. She wants to be able to read that impact statement herself at a parole hearing.

Unfortunately the legislation does not provide for that. It does nothing to provide for that. There is some word that legislation will be coming to deal with corrections and conditional release. That of course would deal with this issue, but it would make sense that it should be in place before this legislation is debated.

Let us make sure this is only considered by the government to be the first step. Let us carry forth and do a lot more to help victims of crime.